4.7 Article

Chitosan/gelatin/platelet gel enriched by a combination of hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate in healing of a radial bone defect model in rat

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MACROMOLECULES
Volume 101, Issue -, Pages 630-637

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.03.148

Keywords

Hydroxyapatite; Beta-tricalcium phosphate; Platelet-rich plasma; Bone healing and regeneration; Radius

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the regeneration potentials of the hydroxyapatite (HA) and beta-tricalcium phosphate ((3-TCP) alone or in combination with a HA:TCP ratio of 30:70 in the critical-sized radial bone defects of rats. Bilateral 60 radial bone defects created were randomly divided into six equal groups (n = 10 defects/group) including autograft, untreated or defect, chitosan-gelatin-platelet gel (CGP), CGPHA, CGP-TCP and CGP-HA/TCP. The defects were evaluated by radiography, morphology, histopathology, histomorphometry, CT scan, scanning electron microscopy and biomechanical testing after eight weeks. Compared with the untreated and CGP-HA groups, the CGP and CGP-HA/TCP groups showed significantly higher new bone formation, bone volume, and mechanical properties. The CGP-HA and CGP-TCP scaffolds showed low biodegradability, whereas the CGP scaffolds were completely degraded. Osteoconductivity and osteoinductivity of the CGP and CGP-HA/TCP scaffolds were superior to the CGP-HA ones. The untreated and CGP-HA groups repaired mostly through fibrosis, while there were evidence of higher bone formation in the autograft, CGP and CGP-HA/TCP groups. In conclusion, addition of HA or S-TCP alone into the CGP scaffolds impaired bone regeneration, while bone regeneration with the CGP and CGP-HA/TCP scaffolds was comparable with the autograft. Therefore, the CGP-HA/TCP scaffold can be a possible option to substitute the autologous bone grafting. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available